Topic: SS Richard Montgomery

[Trada]

I was just reading this story, I've never heard of the cargo ship before that sunk off the coast of Kent in 1944, and they are saying one day it will explode and when it does it will be one of the biggest non-nuclear blasts ever and could cause a tsunami.

Sunken WWII boat filled with explosives 'could cause tsunami'

An explosion of the SS Richard Montgomery is 'inevitable' and could destroy parts of the the Isle of Sheppy in Kent, an expert claims



A devastating tsunami could wreak havoc on Kent coast if a WWII cargo ship were to blow up, it is claimed.

One expert has made a dire prediction that an explosion on the SS Richard Montgomery is 'inevitable.'

The ship sank and split in two off the coast of Sheerness, Kent, in August 1944.

But the vessel remains a severe threat to the surrounding area and is even being monitored by the government.

It is believed to have around 1,400 tonnes of explosives on board, Kent Live reported.

A film director who has studied the ship for years says that it is in danger of blowing up.

Masts of the stranded boat can still be seen poking above the water, an eerie reminder of what lies beneath.

Time has taken its toll on the ageing vessel and the government has previously warned the risk of explosions are more likely than ever.

According to a report by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency  there are holes in the ship big enough to to allow the explosives to escape.

Part of the wreck which still contains 2,000 cases of 'used and non-fused fragmentation cluster bombs' and 208 tonnes of bombs containing TNT.

If these explosives were to suddenly detonate, a catastrophic explosion would pose a serious threat.

A 2004 report by the New Scientist stated if the ship did explode it would be one of the biggest non-nuclear blasts ever and would devastate the port of Sheerness.

The site of the ship is constantly being monitored by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and is well sign-posted to ensure no ships inadvertently wander into the path of the sunken danger.

Ken Knowles, a director who spent ten years making a film about the ship, believes that its condition is worsening and if nothing is done, large-scale disaster is inevitable.

He said that should the corroding ship’s bombs explode, debris would cause damage to the area within a 20-mile radius.

What’s more, he argues, there is a potential that the explosion could cause a tsunami.

“If the Montgomery went off it could cause a tsunami that would flood London,” he said.

He also points out that despite the protective measures, there have been multiple occasions were calamity was narrowly avoided.

There have been near misses from cargo ships going up the Thames. They have been warned off by the Sheerness docks control tower,” he said.

Ken believes that most Sheerness residents take the ship for granted and do not feel it poses a threat.

He said: “It is something that most will say ‘It has been there for 70 years. What are you worried about?’ If you went into a pub and asked people about it, they would say ‘Not the Montgomery again!’”

Despite this he said that during his studies into the ship, he had heard of one individual who ended up leaving Sheerness out of fear of the Montgomery and its bombs.

Should a team of bomb disposal experts attempt to diffuse or remove the Richard Montgomery’s cargo, it would require evacuating everywhere within a 25-mile radius for months at a time, which Ken argues is realistically an impossibility.

He said: “When there is one bomb found in a high street, the bomb disposal team evacuates all the area within ten miles because that it the size of the area the bomb would affect. On the Montgomery there are hundreds of bombs.”

Ken feels that the Ministry of Defence is reluctant to find do anything about the Montgomery because currently, there is no clear way to tackle the problem.

“If you speak to any of the officials, they would say there is no solution,” he said.

“Something is going to happen and it is quite sad really because nobody in a high position, even bomb disposal experts, have got a solution.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sunken-wwii-boat-filled-explosives-16211510

[Riquende]

...and they are saying...

...an expert claims...

One expert has made a dire prediction...

It is believed to have...

A film director who has studied the ship for years...

...and is well sign-posted to ensure no ships inadvertently wander into the path of the sunken danger.

Ken Knowles, a director who spent ten years making a film about the ship, believes...

TL;DR
A ship sank near a busy waterway, the water is shallow enough that the wreck is close to the surface and poses a danger to the hulls of ships that pass directly overhead. A local man (a director so renowned he doesn't have an IMDB page and who is labelled an expert on the basis of reading about the ship for a long time), has gone to the local paper (possibly well-timed to drum up interest in his newly-finished film on the subject) to outline what he thinks could happen, and hints at some sort of conspiracy as he's not being taken seriously.

Ken presumably later said the explosion would be another indictment of Tory austerity and it was time for a general election.

[classycarra]

TL;DR
A ship sank near a busy waterway, the water is shallow enough that the wreck is close to the surface and poses a danger to the hulls of ships that pass directly overhead. A local man (a director so renowned he doesn't have an IMDB page and who is labelled an expert on the basis of reading about the ship for a long time), has gone to the local paper (possibly well-timed to drum up interest in his newly-finished film on the subject) to outline what he thinks could happen, and hints at some sort of conspiracy as he's not being taken seriously.

Ken presumably later said the explosion would be another indictment of Tory austerity and it was time for a general election.

quality summation

Typo/added word aside, I particularly loved this line while skimming the article: "Ken feels that the Ministry of Defence is reluctant to find do anything about the Montgomery because currently, there is no clear way to tackle the problem."

I mean, having no way to tackle a problem is surely the most understandable of reasons not to do anything right?!

[Red Beret]

Fascinating article. Dug this out from Wikipedia:

   The Maritime and Coastguard Agency nevertheless believe that the risk of a major explosion is remote.[10] The UK government's Receiver of Wreck commissioned a risk assessment in 1999, but this risk assessment has not been published.[9] The Maritime and Coastguard Agency convened with local and port authorities to discuss the report in 2001 and concluded that "doing nothing [was] not an option for much longer".

One of the reasons that the explosives have not been removed was the unfortunate outcome of a similar operation in July 1967 to neutralize the contents of Kielce, a ship of Polish origin, sunk in 1946 off Folkestone in the English Channel. During preliminary work, Kielce, which contained a comparable amount of ordnance, exploded with a force equivalent to an earthquake measuring 4.5 on the Richter scale, digging a 20-foot-deep (6 m) crater in the seabed and bringing "panic and chaos" to Folkestone, although there were no injuries.[1] Kielce was at least 3 or 4 miles (4.8 or 6.4 km) from land, sunk in deeper water than Richard Montgomery, and had "just a fraction" of the load of explosives.[11]

According to a BBC news report in 1970,[12] it was determined that if the wreck of Richard Montgomery exploded, it would throw a 1,000-foot-wide (300 m) column of water and debris nearly 10,000 feet (3,000 m) into the air and generate a wave 16 feet (5 m) high. Almost every window in Sheerness (pop. circa 20,000) would be broken and buildings would be damaged by the blast. However, news reports in May 2012 (including one by BBC Kent) stated that the wave could be about 4 feet (1 m) high, which although lower than previous estimates would be enough to cause flooding in some coastal settlements.[13][14] 

The problem with the original article for me is that  it uses one person leaving the area as evidence to imply imminent threat; and the example of a single bomb diffusion to catastrophise.

Bottom line is there are no practical measures to take. It's going to blow sooner or later and going near it will likely make it sooner. You can't have an evacuation plan for something completely unpredictable. Even a volcano has warning signs so you can evacuate people.

When it goes, people will be injured; there's a chance a few unlucky sods will be killed, and there won't be a window in the area left intact.  The only possible solution I can see to mitigate potential damage would be to construct artificial sandbanks around the ship.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Fascinating article. Dug this out from Wikipedia:

The problem with the original article for me is that  it uses one person leaving the area as evidence to imply imminent threat; and the example of a single bomb diffusion to catastrophise.

Bottom line is there are no practical measures to take. It's going to blow sooner or later and going near it will likely make it sooner. You can't have an evacuation plan for something completely unpredictable. Even a volcano has warning signs so you can evacuate people.

When it goes, people will be injured; there's a chance a few unlucky sods will be killed, and there won't be a window in the area left intact.  The only possible solution I can see to mitigate potential damage would be to construct artificial sandbanks around the ship.

Or, maybe, evacuate and then try prodding it!? I'm sure they have already considered that - presumably, there are good reasons for not doing that, either. I suppose it would be possible that they would just destabilise it, everyone would return, and it explodes soon after. Or maybe some other good reason I cannot think of.

[CraigDS]

I assume these bombs weren’t designed to be used in water - if so are they likely be affected by being in there for nearly 80 years?

[Fortneef]

"destroy parts of the the Isle of Sheppy in Kent"

Ok, so whats the problem?

[Red Beret]

I assume these bombs weren’t designed to be used in water - if so are they likely be affected by being in there for nearly 80 years?

From what I recall from the wikipedia article, as certain metals in the bombs corrode they combine to form an acid that could lead to the bombs self detonating.  Of course that doesn't mean they'll all explode at the same time in some kind of chain reaction, but TNT can explode due to concussion so if one bomb goes off presumably it can set off the rest.  Plus, TNT in itself is toxic, so it could spread a lot of contaminated material over a wide area if it explodes.

I don't know how seawater affects it, but if it made it any safer there'd be no reason for this thread.

[The Gulleysucker]

There are many places with large quantities of unexploded ordinance below ground or sea.

Faulds is still reckoned to have quite a lot down there and there is still one of the 1st WW western front mines sitting, waiting

And as for Beaufort Dyke....there is well over a million tons of munitions at the bottom of Beaufort's Dyke.

[Elmo!]

And as for Beaufort Dyke....there is well over a million tons of munitions at the bottom of Beaufort's Dyke.

And Boris wants to build a bridge over it from Scotland to NI....

[Red Beret]

And Boris wants to build a bridge over it from Scotland to NI....

jeez.  They'd be better off setting the explosives off to excavate a tunnel.

[Trada]

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/THvkZQjdY0s" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/THvkZQjdY0s</a>

[Trada]

At the really least you would think it would make good UK disaster film/book, with terrorists trying to set it off or something.

[Mutton Geoff]

And Boris wants to build a bridge over it from Scotland to NI....

Boris hasnt got a good track record with Bridges so dont worry about that happening.

[Trada]

There is a debate in the House of lords tomorrow about the wreck and wanting a update on it.

Heads in the sand

Toby Harris on the strange, unresolved tale of the wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery

At the height of the Second World War, the St John’s River Shipbuilding Company in Jacksonville, Florida, built 82 Liberty Ships for the United States government. The vessels were regarded as expendable and they were not built to last.

In August 1944 one of these ships laden with over 6000 tonnes of high explosive was instructed to berth over the Sheerness Middle Sands. The instruction came from the King’s Harbourmaster, who overruled the advice of his deputy that the water was too shallow.

On 20 August in a force eight gale, the SS Richard Montgomery dragged her anchor and ran aground. Its plates began to buckle and crack, and the crew abandoned ship. For the next few weeks, attempts were made to remove the munitions until this was considered too risky. (The Admiralty refused to pay danger money to the salvage crew).

While it is generally thought that over 3000 tonnes of bombs and shells are thought to remain on board, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency believe it is more like 1400. Either way, it’s a lot – given that a half-tonne unexploded bomb closed London City Airport last February.

Since 1944, virtually nothing has been done to make the wreck safe or remove the remaining explosives. Yet, the SS Richard Montgomery sits only 2.4 kilometres from the town of Sheerness and its 11,000 population. And perhaps even more worrying, 3 to 5 kilometres from the Isle of Grain with its oil-fired power station and four storage tanks (each the size of the Royal Albert Hall) of liquefied natural gas, as well as 18 more used for storing oil.

It is also a mere 200 metres from a busy shipping lane. In May 1980, the Danish-registered Mare Altum, a chemical tanker of almost 1600 gross tonnage – carrying low flash-point toluene – was on a direct collision course with the wreck. A catastrophe that was only just averted.

In 1970, The Royal Military College of Science estimated that in the event of an explosion, the remaining cargo could see a 3000 metre-high column of water and debris, followed by a five metre-high tsunami. With the latter then overwhelming Sheerness and the water wave – possibly carrying burning phosphorus – reaching the petrochemical installation at Grain.

It strikes me as rather odd that nothing has been done in the intervening decades. So this Wednesday I will lead a short debate in the House of Lords where I hope the Minister responding for the Department for Transport will provide some answers to a number of concerns.

What is the current assessment of the state of the munitions that remain and how does the government know, given that the periodic surveys only look at the exterior of the ship? What are the contingency plans for the protection of the Isle of Grain and the residents of Sheerness? Why were the offers made by the US government to make the wreck safe rejected? And what does the UK government plan to do instead?

My fear is that Ministers are hoping the problem will

[WhereAngelsPlay]

So what has Toby Harris been doing about it,he has been in Politics for 40yrs.

While it is generally thought that over 3000 tonnes of bombs and shells are thought to remain on board, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency believe it is more like 1400. Either way, it’s a lot – given that a half-tonne unexploded bomb closed London City Airport last February.

  As would the discovery of an unexploded hand grenade.

[CornerFlag]

When I saw this was about an explosive wreck I thought Johnson had sought to secretly batter a journo again.

Anyway, Beaufort's Dyke is far more of a worry down the line I'd have thought when some of that old munition goes.

[TepidT2O]

I’d expect the TNT to have degraded somewhat with oxidation of the benzene ring or substitution of the nitro groups on it.


Still, best plan for the worst case scenario.

[bradders1011]

I like how it's on Google Maps, but listed as "permanently closed"

[The Gulleysucker]

I’d expect the TNT to have degraded somewhat with oxidation of the benzene ring or substitution of the nitro groups on it.


Still, best plan for the worst case scenario.

Not so sure about that, the explosives would be a mix of TNT and RDX which I understand can stay very stable except at high temperatures.

RDX does need a detonator though otherwise it just fizzles away.

At a guess, the larger munitions would possible not be fitted with detonators for shipment, that would be done by the armorers prior to loading them on aircraft, although the smaller stuff that's possibly still onboard could be fitted.

Nevertheless, I suspect something needs to be done though quite what I'm not sure though it's unlikely to attract many volunteers to do the job of extracting and making safe whatever is down there.

As for the cataclysmic effects should it go off, I honestly don't know, but yes, preparing for the worst would make sense.

The Malakand went off with a few thousand tons and devasted Huskisson No 2 during the Liverpool Blitz...



..though mercifully few were killed.

However, here's what happens when another few thousand tons of mixed ordinance went off after a Kamikaze hit...

<a href="https://youtube.com/v/hJcDVbH5q3k" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://youtube.com/v/hJcDVbH5q3k</a>

[Nobby Reserve]

At the really least you would think it would make good UK disaster film/book, with terrorists trying to set it off or something.

My first thought was "How easy would it be for the psychotic Muslimists to get hold of a few depth charges and a fishing boat?"

[classycarra]

My first thought was "How easy would it be for the psychotic Muslimists to get hold of a few depth charges and a fishing boat?"

Could have the same amusing consequences as in Four Lions

[The Gulleysucker]

I've had a bit of a lookround and there appears to be a bit of a breakthrough or at least a concerted International effort in dealing with this sort of thing.

There'a PDF, slightly redacted, here written by a Dutch guy.

And also one here outlining some of the techniques that could be viably employed these days.

It contains an interesting snippet on Page 16....

One of the best current examples of conducting an underwater survey to detect a suspected toxic chemical munitions underwater dump site is the work that has been achieved by the Hawaii Undersea Military Assessment (HUMMA) http://www.soest.hawaii.eduunder the administration of the University of Hawaii.  As a result of research efforts that occurred in 2005 records indicated thatin 1944 approximately 16,000 M47A2 toxic chemical bombs containing the Blister Agent(HS)  was  sea  dumped  5-miles  off  the  entrance  to PearlHarbor, the  island  of Oahu,  Hawaii.  This location is now situated off one of the most popular beaches in Hawaiian, WaikikiBeach....